Docket Number: FD-130128-RO
                                 STATE OF NEW YORK
                     DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                           OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

        ------------------------------------X  S.J.R. No. 5125
        IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
        APPEAL  OF                               DOCKET  NO.  FD   130128-RO
                                            : 
             WOODHAVEN 98 REALTY CORP.,        DRO DOCKET NO. AD 130130-OM

                              PETITIONER    : 
        ------------------------------------X                           
          
            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL, IN PART, 
         AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER PROCESSING

        On  March  30,  1988,  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  an
        Administrative Appeal against an order issued on February  29,  1988
        by  the  District  Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall  Street,
        Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing  accommodations  known  as
        86-22 98th Street, Woodhaven, New York, Various Apartments.  

        On May 4, 1988, the Commissioner, under Docket  No.  CC  130213  RO,
        issued an order and opinion  rejecting  the  owner's  administrative
        appeal for a procedural defect, but without prejudice to  the  owner
        timely refiling a corrected appeal.

        On April 26, 1990, the  owner  refiled  its  administrative  appeal.
        Said refiled appeal was assigned Docket No. ED 130191-RO.  

        On May 25, 1990,  the  Commissioner  issued  an  order  and  opinion
        dismissing the owner's administrative appeal based upon the  owner's
        failure to refile its appeal within the specified  time  limitations
        for refiling.

        Subsequent thereto, the owner filed a petition in the Supreme  Court
        pursuant  to  Article  78  of  the  Civil  Practice  Law  and  Rules
        requesting that the order of the Commissioner be annulled.

        On January 10, 1991, a judgment was signed  by  Justice  Joan  Marie
        Durante vacating the Commissioner's order and  opinion  of  May  25,
        1990,  and  directing   the   Division   to   determine   a   proper
        administrative appeal against the February 29,  1988  order  of  the
        District Rent Administrator which is filed by  the  owner  within  a
        specified time after service of a copy of the judgment  with  notice
        of entry.

        On February 13, 1991, the owner filed an  administrative  appeal  in
        accordance with the Court judgment.  Said administrative appeal  was
        assigned Docket No. FB 130211 RO.




        On March 21, 1991, the Commissioner  issued  an  order  and  opinion
        rejecting the administrative appeal for a procedural defect, without 
        prejudice to the owner timely refiling a corrected appeal.






          Docket Number: FD-130128-RO

        On April 3, 1991, the owner timely refiled a  corrected  and  proper
        administrative appeal against the February 29,  1988  order  of  the
        District Rent Administrator.

        The administrative  appeal  is  being  determined  pursuant  to  the
        provisions of 9 NYCRR 2202.4 and 9 NYCRR 2522.4.
          
        The issue herein is whether the District Rent Administrator properly 
        determined the owner's application for a rent increase based upon  a
        claimed major capital improvement (MCI).

        A review of the record indicates that on April 18, 1986,  the  owner
        filed an application for a rent increase based upon the installation 
        of  new  windows,  building-wide,  at  a  total  claimed   cost   of
        $19,096.00, $17,096.00 of which was substantiated by the  submission
        of cancelled checks.

        On May 16, 1986, the Division mailed a notice to the owner, advising 
        it of the docket number assigned to the application, together with a 
        package of material including copies of the Notice to Tenants  (Form
        RA-79N) and the Certification of Service  to  Tenants  (Form  RA-79,
        Supplement IV).  The owner was advised that it had sixty  days  from
        the mailing date to serve the RA-79N form on  all  affected  tenants
        and to certify to the Division that it had done so.  The  owner  was
        further advised that failure to   submit  the  Certification  within
        said  sixty-day  period  would  result  in  the  dismissal  of   the
        application, without prejudice to the owner's right to refile.

        On October 23, 1986, the Division mailed a notice to the owner which 
        requested that the owner submit,  among  other  things,  the  RA-79-
        Supplement IV Certification and an Affidavit of  Registration  (both
        forms enclosed with said notice).

        On September 22, 1987, the Division mailed  another  notice  to  the
        owner again requesting, among other things, the  RA79-Supplement  IV
        Certification (said form again enclosed with the notice).

        On November 13, 1987, the Division mailed  a  final  notice  to  the
        owner stating that the Division had not received a response  to  the
        notice of September 22, 1987 and again  requesting  that  the  owner
        submit, among other things, the RA79-Supp IV Certification form.

        The record does not  contain  a  response  from  the  owner  and  on
        February 29, 1988, the District Rent Administrator issued the  order
        appealed herein.

        The  District  Rent  Administrator's  order   denied   the   owner's
        application based upon findings that the owner failed  to  submit  a
        complete application, having omitted Form RA-79, Supplement IV 



        (Certification of Service of Notice to Tenants) and that  the  owner
        failed to submit proof of registration,  "after  no  entry  for  the
        subject building was found in the Division's computer."

        On appeal, the petitioner-owner  enclosed  a  completed  Form  RA-79
        Supp IV (Certification of Service of Notice To Tenants) dated 






          Docket Number: FD-130128-RO
        March 21, 1988, stating that on March 21, 1988, the owner  completed
        service  upon  the  affected  tenants  of  all  necessary  forms  in
        connection with its application.  The owner also submitted a copy of 
        the 1987 Annual Registration Summary for the subject building, dated 
        June 11, 1987.

        The record contains responses from two tenants,  both  stating  that
        they did, in fact, receive new windows.

        After careful consideration of the entire  evidence  of  record  the
        Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal should 
        be granted, in part, and the proceeding  remanded  to  the  District
        Rent Administrator for further processing as provided hereinbelow.

        Firstly, a review of the Division's  records  and  computer  entries
        indicates that the owner registered the subject premises in 1984 and 
        filed annual registration updates for 1986,  1987,  1988,  1989  and
        1990.  The reference in the  District  Rent  Administrator's  order,
        that the owner failed to submit  proof  of  registration  which  was
        requested after no entry for the subject building was found  on  the
        Division's computer, should therefore be deleted.

        With  regard  to  the  remaining  ground  for  the   District   Rent
        Administrator's denial of the owner's application,  that  the  owner
        failed to submit Form RA-79, Supplement IV (Certification of Service 
        of Notice to Tenants), the owner submitted with its  appeal  against
        the District Rent Administrator's  order  of  February  29,  1988  a
        completed certification dated March 21, 1988.

        An owner's application for a rent increase based upon an MCI is  not
        deemed complete until said certification  form  is  filed  with  the
        Division.  While the District Rent Administrator  acted  within  the
        scope of proper discretion and  authority  in  denying  the  owner's
        application after the owner's repeated failure  to  respond  to  the
        Division's notices requesting said certification form,  such  denial
        would normally be without prejudice to the owner's right to  refile.
        However, under the terms of the current code, the  owner  could  not
        file for work completed more than two years ago.   In  consideration
        of  the  equities  involved,  the  unusual  circumstances  of   this
        proceeding, the owner's prior submission of proof, and the  tenants'
        acknowledgment that the installation had been made, the Commissioner 
        is of the opinion that this proceeding should  be  remanded  to  the
        District Rent Administrator for further consideration of all of  the
        evidence submitted by the owner in support of its  application  and,
        if the owner is found eligible,  establishment  of  the  appropriate
        rental adjustment.   On  remand,  the  District  Rent  Administrator
        should also afford the  owner  an  opportunity  to  submit  evidence
        establishing that it had filed annual registration updates for 1985.


        The Commissioner notes that the  owner's  delay  in  submitting  the
        required certification form results in a later effective date of the 
        increase, if any, for rent-stabilized tenants.  The  effective  date
        for rent-controlled tenants is the first rent payment day  following
        issuance of the order on remand, as per the provisions  of  9  NYCRR
        2202.2.

        THEREFORE, in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Rent  and
        Eviction Regulations for New York City and  the  Rent  Stabilization






          Docket Number: FD-130128-RO
        Law and Code, it is

        ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby is, 
        granted, in part, and the proceeding remanded to the  District  Rent
        Administrator for further processing in accordance with  this  order
        and opinion.  The order  and  determination  of  the  District  Rent
        Administrator remains in full force and effect until a new order  is
        issued on remand.

        ISSUED: 





                                      ELLIOT SANDER
                                      Deputy Commissioner
    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name